Joseph v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joseph v. New York City Housing Authority

179 A.D.2d 441, 577 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 441 (Joseph v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph v. New York City Housing Authority, 179 A.D.2d 441, 577 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

On July 6, 1989, petitioner was assaulted and robbed in the elevator of her apartment building, a New York City Housing Authority project. Shortly after the incident, petitioner notified respondent Authority of the occurrence when she requested to be transferred to other housing. Petitioner failed to file a notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period of General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a), instead filing a claim on February 22, 1990, approximately 8 months after the occurrence. The untimely notice alleges that respondent was negligent in, among other things, failing to maintain the door locks to the common areas in good repair, and in allowing loiterers to enter the premises.

The IAS court did not err in deeming petitioner’s notice timely. The reports of the occurrence to respondent were sufficient to constitute actual notice, even though there is no indication that petitioner’s report connected the criminal activity to a lack of security (compare, Evans v New York City Hous. Auth., 176 AD2d 221). Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the report of a physician who first examined the petitioner in May, 1990 was sufficient to establish her incapacity to seek timely legal advice due to depression. The sufficiency of this excuse is not undermined by the fact that petitioner was able to report the incident, and perform her normal daily activities. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On July 6, 1989, petitioner was assaulted and robbed in the elevator of her apartment building, a New York City Housing Authority project. Shortly after the incident, petitioner notified respondent Authority of the occurrence when she requested to be transferred to other housing. Petitioner failed to file a notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period of General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a), instead filing a claim on February 22, 1990, approximately 8 months after the occurrence. The untimely notice alleges that respondent was negligent in, among other things, failing to maintain the door locks to the common areas in good repair, and in allowing loiterers to enter the premises.

The IAS court did not err in deeming petitioner’s notice timely. The reports of the occurrence to respondent were sufficient to constitute actual notice, even though there is no indication that petitioner’s report connected the criminal activity to a lack of security (compare, Evans v New York City Hous. Auth., 176 AD2d 221). Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the report of a physician who first examined the petitioner in May, 1990 was sufficient to establish her incapacity to seek timely legal advice due to depression. The sufficiency of this excuse is not undermined by the fact that petitioner was able to report the incident, and perform her normal daily activities. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 441, 577 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack